A comparison of forward blocking and reduced overshadowing in human causal learning

Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

Volumn 12, Issue 5, 2005, Pages 945-949

  Vandorpe, Stefaan ^a   De Houwer, Jan ^a  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33644778720     PISSN: 10699384     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03196790     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. AITKEN, M. R. F., LARKIN, M. J. W., & DICKINSON, A. (2001). Reexamination of the role of within-compound associations in the retrospective revaluation of causal judgements. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54B, 27-51.
2. ARCEDIANO, F., ESCOBAR, M., & MATUTE, H. (2001). Reversal from blocking in humans as a result of posttraining extinction of the blocking stimulus. Animal Learning & Behavior, 29, 354-366.
3. CHAPMAN, G. B. (1991). Trial order affects cue interaction in contingency judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 17, 837-854.
4. CHENG, P. W. (1997). From covariation to causation: A causal power theory. Psychological Review, 104, 367-405.
5. DE HOUWER, J., & BECKERS, T. (2003). Secondary task difficulty modulates forward blocking in human contingency learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56B, 345-357.
6. DE HOUWER, J., BECKERS, T., & GLAUTIER, S. (2002). Outcome and cue properties modulate blocking. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54A, 3-25.
7. DENNISTON, J. C., SAVASTANO, H. I., & MILLER, R. R. (2001). The extended comparator hypothesis: Learning by contiguity, responding by relative strength. In R. R. Mowrer & S. B. Klein (Eds.), Handbook of contemporary learning theories (pp. 65-117). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
8. DICKINSON, A., & BURKE, J. (1996). Within-compound associations mediate the retrospective revaluation of causality judgements. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49B, 60-80.
9. DICKINSON, A., SHANKS, D., & EVENDEN, J. (1984). Judgement of act-outcome contingency: The role of selective attribution. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36A, 29-50.
10. GLAUTIER, S. (2002). Spatial separation of target and competitor cues enhances blocking of human causality judgements. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55B, 121-136.
11. LARKIN, M. J. W., AITKEN, M. R. F., & DICKINSON, A. (1998). Retrospective revaluation of causal judgments under positive and negative contingencies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 24, 1331-1352.
12. LOVIBOND, P. F. (2003). Causal beliefs and conditioned responses: Retrospective revaluation induced by experience and by instruction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 29, 97-106.
13. MACKINTOSH, N. J. (1975). A theory of attention: Variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement. Psychological Review, 82, 276-298.
14. MELCHERS, K. G., LACHNIT, H., & SHANKS, D. (2004). Withincompound associations in retrospective revaluation and in direct learning: A challenge for comparator theory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57B, 25-54.
15. MILLER, R. R., & MATZEL, L. D. (1988). The comparator hypothesis: A response rule for the expression of associations. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 22, pp. 51-92). San Diego: Academic Press.
16. PEARCE, J. M., & HALL, G. (1980). A model for Pavlovian learning: Variations in the effectiveness of conditioned but not of unconditioned stimuli. Psychological Review, 87, 532-552.
17. RESCORLA, R. A., & WAGNER, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In A. H. Black & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.), Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory (pp. 64-99). New York: Appleton.
18. SHANKS, D. R. (1985). Forward and backward blocking in human contingency judgement. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 37B, 1-21.
19. VANDORPE, S., & DE HOUWER, J. (in press). A comparison of cue competition in a simple and a complex design. Acta Psychologica.
20. VANDORPE, S., DE HOUWER, J., & BECKERS, T. (2005). The role of memory for compounds in cue competition. Manuscript submitted for publication.
21. VAN HAMME, L. J., & WASSERMAN, E. A. (1994). Cue competition in causality judgments: The role of nonpresentation of compound stimulus elements. Learning & Motivation, 25, 127-151.
22. WAGNER, A. R. (1981). SOP: A model of automatic memory processing in animal behavior. In N. E. Spear & R. R. Miller (Eds.), Information processing in animals: Memory mechanisms (pp. 5-47). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
23. WALDMANN, M. R. (2000). Competition among causes but not effects in predictive and diagnostic learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 26, 53-76.
24. WASSERMAN, E. A., & BERGLAN, I. R. (1998). Backward blocking and recovery from overshadowing in human causal judgement: The role of within-compound associations. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51B, 121-138.